Strawman: Services and service-providers support

[Glyn Normington]

Hi Stanley

"Stanley M. Ho" <Stanley.Ho at SUN.COM> wrote on 23/05/2007 18:30:03:

> Hi Glyn,
>
> This strawman was developed based on the updated JSR 277 specification
> which has undergone significant changes since the EDR, so ideally the
> updated specification is required in order for the readers to have the
> proper context to fully understand the strawman; otherwise, this could
> lead to misunderstanding or confusion.

Agreed. It would be good to make both available to the general public.

>
> That said, I have already received requests from a few observers since
> yesterday, and I think it may indeed be helpful to have the strawman
> available alone. However, it is unclear what the JCP rules are for
> making material like this available outside the EG, and I have already
> contacted the JCP PMO for clarification.

Fair enough, but I think this should be ok since the JCP rules seem to
encourage transparency. For example, section 2.1.1 of JCP 2.6 ([1]) says:

"While Spec Leads are free to operate Expert Groups in whatever style they
feel is most appropriate, they are encouraged to choose a style that
provides maximal transparency to the Expert Group, community, the EC
members and the public. The PMO provides Spec Leads with tools and
techniques for making the actions of their Expert Groups transparent, and
the EC members expect Spec Leads to carefully choose which tools are best
for their Expert Groups and commit to using them. Transparency is valuable
to everyone in the community, especially the Expert Group, because it
offers broader feedback to the group and helps build broader support for
the final spec."

So the JCP is, at least in spirit, fully supportive of the kind of
transparency needed by JSR 277. It's just a shame we can't simply expose
the Expert Group private page to the public, although this is something
the JCP should really consider supporting soon.

Section 2.3.1 of [1] says:

"If the Expert Group makes major revisions to the draft during Early Draft
Review, the Spec Lead should send the revised draft, along with a synopsis
of the changes, to the PMO. The PMO will notify Members of any updated
drafts and change synopses received and make them available for download
by Members and the public."

This allows for multiple early draft specifications. I guess the JCP's
main concern here is appropriate notification to JCP Members that a draft
has been issued. This is sensible as not everyone who is interested will
have the time to follow the mailing list. I doubt that it would be
appropriate to notify JCP Members of interim strawman documents though.

Then there's the precedent of the JSR 294 strawman appearing in a blog
even before the EG was formed. The JCP didn't object to that, AFAIK. Also,
I forwarded at least one of the JSR 291 drafts to the publicly viewable
mailing list and again the JCP didn't object.

Anyway, let's hope the JCP clarify this quickly. :-)

>
> - Stanley
>
>
> Glyn Normington wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stanley
> >
> > Don't you think we should make the strawman available to observers of
> > this list so they have the context to follow subsequent discussion of
> > the strawman and send in any insights they may have?
> >
> > Glyn

Glyn
[1] http://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2






Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jsr277-eg-observer/attachments/20070524/ab660611/attachment.html